Ripping hardware

@seymour-krelborn Very helpful. I like to stay with my definition of 'transport' vs 'streamer' for the source of the digital information. So that is on the start of the signal chain, with the DAC at the other end. 

Now regarding the clocking: if PC (or network drive) to DAC lacks clocking control, you suggest to splice in a 'clock conditioner', which could be a quality streamer? I assume there is hardware out there that has file storage (hard drive) AND dedicated 'clocking control' to feed a DAC (or even a quality DAC built in for an all in one)? Then ripping the source material to file, copy over to 'streamer' (and if needed, external DAC) would be the best setup?

@kraftwerkturbo 

Now regarding the clocking: if PC (or network drive) to DAC lacks clocking control, you suggest to splice in a ’clock conditioner’, which could be a quality streamer?

I want to be as accurate as possible, so I am not sure that a clock conditioner is a proper label.  The word "conditioner" is conveying a function of helping out the clock, which is not technically correct, as I understand the roles of the hardware.

I do not believe that any clock can be conditioned or helped.  A clock will be as accurate as it is (although giving it additional tasks will result in each task having fewer slices of the clocks time, which is bad for sound quality).

I recommend inserting a dedicated, external clock, that is designed to do one thing, and only one thing.  It takes whatever streaming bits were sent to it, and it re-clocks those bits.  My understanding is that even poorly timed bits will be re-clocked and become highly, precisely timed.  I have read that the more the improvement that you hear, with a re-clocker, the worse that your initial box (now feeding the re-clocking box) was.  For some streamers with excellent clocking, the improvement is minor, because the re-clocked bits are only slightly better timed than the streamer’s already very accurately timed bits.

I assume there is hardware out there that has file storage (hard drive) AND dedicated ’clocking control’ to feed a DAC (or even a quality DAC built in for an all in one)?

I would think so.  Although I have never looked into that.  But such gear must exist, and probably lots to choose from.  You wrote "hard drive".  Use only a solid state drive (probably what you meant).

Then ripping the source material to file, copy over to ’streamer’ (and if needed, external DAC) would be the best setup?

That is very close to what I do (depending on the definition of a streamer).  Is it the best?  I do not know.  It is certainly very good, based on my experience before and after using a re-clocker.  And I read a review from The Absolute Sound, where the author wrote that his review sample made any stereo sound better (I forget his exact wording, but he was referring to cost-no-object stereos).

I have ripped all of my CDs, in order to play all of my songs, directly from my laptop (which is my streamer).  I have also purchased thousands of flac files that I play from my laptop.

One high-end store owner told me that he gets the best sound quality, after he purchases songs, and plays them directly off of his Mac with Audirvāna.  He gets excellent sound quality having it streamed from Qobuz.  But he told me that when he purchases the song, and plays it from his Mac, it sounds better.

I cannot confirm, as I never did that.  I do not see why it would sound better when not coming from Qobuz?  Perhaps when his Mac is not using its network port, it generates less electrical noise, and one less job for the power supply?  But I believe him that it sounds best when the files are stored on his Mac’s solid state drive.

I am doing the same thing, with a Windows 10 laptop.  I want to transition over to a Mac, but there are some complications.  I will probably visit an Apple genius, customer service location to get the answers I am seeking.  I know nothing about Macs.

What you suggested doing sounds good.  Just remember that the device that is directly feeding your DAC will have the most impact on the DAC’s sound quality.  If you use a cheesy re-clocker, you can make things worse.

An external clock (or re-clocker), that has two clocks, is probably a quality box.  Each clock will be dedicated to different sampling rates.

But read reviews, and ultimately let your ears judge.

Lastly, the input on your DAC will likely make a sound quality difference.

I²S or AES/EBU will likely give you the best sounding results (assuming your DAC has those inputs).  SPDIF might be an excellent choice, if your DAC has that input.

I have read that Singxer's SU-2 and SU-6 re-clockers (DDCs (digital-to-digital converters)) are very good, with the SU-6 being slightly better, and neither one will break the bank.

@seymour-krelborn you refer to laptop and MAC, but no re clocker in your/your friend's setup, but no re-clocker. Didn't you earlier state that PC/Mac are terrible clockers? So what machine (examples of models, known best bang for buck) should go between terrible computer and DAC? 

@kraftwerkturbo 

I am using a Windows 10 laptop.  The owner of a high-end store told me that he uses a Mac, and I should, too.

Neither one, on its own, is a solid choice for directly feeding a DAC.  But by introducing a quality re-clocker between the laptop (or Mac) and the DAC, that changes everything for the better.

I have no personal experience with a Mac.  The high-end store's owner told me that it is better than a Windows PC, but still needs a re-clocker due to electrically generated noise (from the Mac) and jitter (from the Mac).  Less so than from a Windows laptop, is my understanding.

While researching a good re-clocker (digital-to-digital converter (DDC)), I came across a couple of candidates that were on my short list:

-- Singxer SU-6

-- Denafrips (I do not recall which model)

But I ended up purchasing the Berkeley Audio Design, model Alpha USB Series 2.

There is a reference model, too, that is twice the price of the Series 2.

If I had the means, I would have gone for the reference model.  But the Series 2 model is outstanding.

A significant cost went into my choice of digital cables.  If not for their high cost, I probably would have purchased the reference model.

I have no mass produced digital cables for comparison.  So maybe I spent more than necessary.  But it has been my experience that cables matter, including digital cables.  And the reviewers of these products also used quality digital cables.  That influenced my decision.

So what machine (examples of models, known best bang for buck) should go between terrible computer and DAC?

I gave a couple of examples, above.  I have never heard them.  But until I purchased my Berkeley DDC, I never heard it, either.  The Berkeley's review was accurate.  I can't speak for the others.  But the others got very good reviews.

As far as best bang for the buck, that is too subjective.  I suggest that you read the reviews, and try to determine which one's sound quality would be a good fit for you and your budget.  It is a difficult decision, without being able to hear each of them with your own ears.

I listed my Berkeley choice, and two other brands.  But there are several other brands that make DDCs.  I believe that the three that I considered are among the best.  But, again, based on reviews.  I have no way of listening to each of them, short of buying all of them (which is not doable for me).

Be sure to factor in the type of ports on the DDC.  Make sure there is the right one that is compatible with your DAC.  And then begin your cable-choice journey, and budget, accordingly.

Thank you @seymour-krelborn for all the valuable input.

I now have a much better understanding of the digital signal pass from transport, storage to DAC. Much appreciate the clear and concise information.